Intellectual Humility & the importance of knowing you might be wrong

[boatman61]

I find perceptions of the State are that it is good and fair to all.. when applied to others
But perceptions quickly change when They become the victim of State abuse..

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

But offending our collective polite sensibilities matters less than herd immunity and the suffering of children who have little to no say in their own health care

This is the essence of why people, for one example, who clearly demonstrate personality disorder traits should be allowed to have their behavior called out, for example, in online forums. This is not the case here, because we like to have "civil" discussions.

Fighting fear with information doesn't work as well, unfortunately, as fighting fear with fear.

1. In real life it has not been my experience that fighting fear with information fails, particularly with anti-vaxxers, except in delusional people, which is rare (religious people notwithstanding as religious people ordinarily are allowed to justify whatever belief they want to get into heaven, etc). Recall that fear is simply a response to the unknown.
2. If you are humane you fight fear with information, not fear. Providing fear is the essence of propaganda (the master/slave Hegel thing). It otherwise takes advantage of System 1 processes at the expense of System 2 learning. Fighting fear with fear ordinarily should only be done in time-sensitive dire situations where there simply isn't time to convey all the necessary information. One does not need to look far into history to see politicians using fear in circumstances that are NOT time sensitive. And we can see the results. How do you talk people down from fear????
3. It's myopic to squeeze a balloon....it will pop out somewhere else. Having an immune herd that will later not trust you when you want to discourage unnecessary antibiotic use is entirely problematic for the herd...arguably more problematic than certain viral outbreaks. Crudely crudely speaking we can replace dead babies much easier than we can maintain a population with no effective antibiotics. Surgery (most notably in children), heart interventions, implants, etc, would largely cease to be viable solutions for whom they currently exist as options.

Anti-vaxxers have graciously already given us the formula. All we have to do is follow it.”

If you cut one of the "s's" off a swastika and rotate the remnant 90 degrees you have a straight line. If a person then walks in and only sees a straight line, they will not be able to see how the line is stacked for/against them. Point being is that a lot of people have figured out formulas to provide solutions to problems, not all of them humane, sustainable, etc. A slipperier slope than calling out crazy for being crazy (as I see it).

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by kmacdonald

Well of course they did. Don't want to spoil the illusion of fair elections. How many total votes were cast in that county? 10?

So, now you’re not only questioning the integrity of some elections, but also the judiciary as well? … See, this was the point I made some pages back; that one of the real danger facing our democracies is this kind of attack on its institutions. Without faith in the system, it all comes crumbling down.

*****

I’ve been further pondering this ID discussion. I’ll try and restate what I said a few posts back: that this appears to be a very Kahanian situation where the issue has become intwined with group politics. Therefore we should all check our own motivated reasoning at the door here, and try and see through to the actual answer.

It is, as I said, to disentangle this issue from tribal identity. Only then will a real solution be found. Otherwise we’re just going to see the ball bounce back and forth between offended parties. And those of us with higher reasoning capabilities will continue to present a motivated-reasoned (biased) response that only serves to inflame the situation.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

I’ve been further pondering this ID discussion. I’ll try and restate what I said a few posts back: that this appears to be a very Kahanian situation where the issue has become intwined with group politics. Therefore we should all check our own motivated reasoning at the door here, and try and see through to the actual answer.

It is, as I said, to disentangle this issue from tribal identity. Only then will a real solution be found. Otherwise we’re just going to see the ball bounce back and forth between offended parties. And those of us with higher reasoning capabilities will continue to present a motivated-reasoned (biased) response that only serves to inflame the situation.

EXACTLY!! The voter ID issue is merely one of a host of politically loaded issues where huge amounts of room for rational, objective, well thought out middle ground exists, but the emotions brought about by group think & tribal identity on both sides produces nothing but further divisiveness. Next thing you know the labels & stereotypes come out, and we see comparisons to Nazi images who's purpose can only be to inflame. There's nothing inherently controversial over the desire to balance actual & perceived concerns over voter fraud with actual or perceived concerns about equally valid prospects of disenfranchising some voters. But why do we seem to immediately resort to intolerance of opposing views without first considering their objective merits?

This is the issue I think is worth exploring (if possible), not the merits or demerits of the actual issue itself, and certainly not another heated partisan exchange that we can all access by turning on 24/7 cable news!

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

[I]EXACTLY!! The voter ID issue is merely one of a host of politically loaded issues where huge amounts of room for rational, objective, well thought out middle ground exists, but the emotions brought about by group think & tribal identity on both sides produces nothing but further divisiveness. Next thing you know the labels & stereotypes come out, and we see comparisons to Nazi images who's purpose can only be to inflame. There's nothing inherently controversial over the desire to balance actual & perceived concerns over voter fraud with actual or perceived concerns about equally valid prospects of disenfranchising some voters. But why do we seem to immediately resort to intolerance of opposing views without first considering their objective merits?

This is the issue I think is worth exploring (if possible), not the merits or demerits of the actual issue itself, and certainly not another heated partisan exchange that we can all access by turning on 24/7 cable news!

Well put … much better than my attempt .

Lets all step away from the specifics of this, and all other politically entangled issues, and continue to explore the human psychology that drives all this. It’s a more stimulating discussion, and it allows the mods to continue to let this operate in the grey zones of CF policy.

Getting back to the broader questions, I really am curious how issues get intertwined, and even more interestingly, DISintwined from group identity. Gay rights, racial minority equity, sex equality … all of these were highly charged subjects, and all were more tightly bound to various group identities in the past.

How did this happen? And does the path these issues followed suggest a way forward for current ‘hot button’ topics?

[Exile]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

Well put … much better than my attempt .

Lets all step away from the specifics of this, and all other politically entangled issues, and continue to explore the human psychology that drives all this. It’s a more stimulating discussion, and it allows the mods to continue to let this operate in the grey zones of CF policy.

Getting back to the broader questions, I really am curious how issues get intertwined, and even more interestingly, DISintwined from group identity. Gay rights, racial minority equity, sex equality … all of these were highly charged subjects, and all were more tightly bound to various group identities in the past.

How did this happen? And does the path these issues followed suggest a way forward for current ‘hot button’ topics?

Trouble is it seems difficult to get to the overarching issue without using examples, and hard to think of examples that aren't politically charged. So maybe looking at issues that have been (somewhat) 'DISintwined' as you say will be helpful.

The thought that immediately comes to mind is how quickly the issue of gay rights, and specifically gay marriage, seemed to progress over the past 10 years or so, at least in the US. In his first campaign in 2008 even Obama came out very publicly supporting the traditional meme that "marriage should be between a man & a woman." But by his second term, there were increasing numbers of state legislatures which were legalizing at least some form of gay marriage (e.g. civil unions) at a rapid pace.

While I approved of the decision on the merits, I thought the US Sup Ct should have refrained from deciding the issue on constitutional grounds since it interrupted the healthier process of the people deciding through their elected representatives state-by-state. Once contentious issues are decided by the courts rather than democratic processes, there's always the risk of it galvanizing passions & extremism from the other side. This is what happened over abortion. Suddenly the issue morphs from one that weighs the pros & cons of the issue itself to a perception that the courts are imposing their own social & religious values on people by fiat. In other words, it halts much of the discussion & debate, and replaces it with simple partisanship from which compromises are difficult if not impossible to reach. In democracies with such complex & diverse populations, it's often better to just let people jump up & down in front of their state or local governing bodies every year, knowing that if they lose they can return next year and jump up & down all over again. As we see again & again on these forums, many people often feel a need to jump up & down!

So I guess maybe part of the solution is to think more carefully how some of these contentious issues get decided, as opposed to the usual focus on what actually gets decided. In some of these seemingly irreconcilable issues, the "solution" may be to just let people continue to shout. May not be ideal, but it's better than acrimony & violence.

Not entirely on point, but maybe food-for-thought on how to address the 'Kahanian' situations that we are struggling with these days.

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by Exile

...The thought that immediately comes to mind is how quickly the issue of gay rights, and specifically gay marriage, seemed to progress over the past 10 years or so, at least in the US. In his first campaign in 2008 even Obama came out very publicly supporting the traditional meme that "marriage should be between a man & a woman." But by his second term, there were increasing numbers of state legislatures which were legalizing at least some form of gay marriage (e.g. civil unions) at a rapid pace.

Yes. Good example. Another could be cannabis legalization, which we seem to be in the midst of.

Originally Posted by Exile

...So I guess maybe part of the solution is to think more carefully how some of these contentious issues get decided, as opposed to the usual focus on what actually gets decided. In some of these seemingly irreconcilable issues, the "solution" may be to just let people continue to shout. May not be ideal, but it's better than acrimony & violence.

Interesting… there does seem to be value in letting a discussion (or even an argument) carry on, rather than having some external authority impose a solution. I suspect, for this to be effective it has to happen in ways where all sides feel they’ve been treated equitably — that they’ve had a real chance to influence the outcome.

People often turn to the courts when they feel they can’t get a fair shake otherwise. This is why it’s so important to maintain and support our institutions of democracy — these are some of the key mechanism we’ve developed to have these contentious debates.

[GordMay]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

...
I’ve been further pondering this ID discussion. I’ll try and restate what I said a few posts back: that this appears to be a very Kahanian situation where the issue has become intwined with group politics. Therefore we should all check our own motivated reasoning at the door here, and try and see through to the actual answer.
It is, as I said, to disentangle this issue from tribal identity. Only then will a real solution be found. Otherwise we’re just going to see the ball bounce back and forth between offended parties. And those of us with higher reasoning capabilities will continue to present a motivated-reasoned (biased) response that only serves to inflame the situation.

Groups as diverse as The Cato Institute, ACLU, Libertarians, etc., have raised concerns about a national I.D. I’m merely pointing out that not everyone sees them as totally innocuous.

It appears, to me, that we can be divided by almost anything, no matter how trivial (I see the issue)


“National ID and Personal Privacy” ~ by Austin Raynor (Libertarian)
Central to a new immigration bill is a national ID proposal, which, if instituted, would undermine personal liberty and expand government surveillance abilities.
“... The card is a gateway to East German-style monitoring of individuals’ personal lives. Every act would be subject to governmental scrutiny. Many aspects of personal liberty have not heretofore been legislated simply because relevant laws would be unenforceable. But if the government were endowed with complete surveillance power, every facet of human life would be opened up to regulation and intrusion...”
➥ The Libertarian Solution : Liberty Library - National ID and Personal Privacy

“5 Problems with National ID Cards” ~ ACLU
“... the creation of a national I.D. card remains a misplaced, superficial "quick fix." It offers only a false sense of security and will not enhance our security - but will pose serious threats to our civil liberties and civil rights. A National ID will not keep us safe or free ...
... Americans have long had a visceral aversion to building a society in which the authorities could act like totalitarian sentries and demand ""your papers please! ...”
➥ https://www.aclu.org/other/5-problems-national-id-cards

“The New National ID Systems” ~ by https://www.cato.org/people/jim-harper
➥ https://www.cato.org/publications/po...nal-id-systems

[senormechanico]

Originally Posted by GordMay

A national voter I.D. seems innocuous enough, until someone visualises an official saying "papers please". I mention this, only partly, in jest.

They say, "Papers, please" whenever you cash a check and a bunch other daily activities. Try saying "No" to a cop when he pulls you over when you're caught speeding and see what happens.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Groups as diverse as The Cato Institute, ACLU, Libertarians, etc., have raised concerns about a national I.D. I’m merely pointing out that not everyone sees them as totally innocuous.

I wonder what the next generation will think when they watch these old movies (on the subject of national ID...really worth watching 10 seconds of each clip...one with Sean Connery, the other Clint Eastwood):

https://youtu.be/P8JW75Lv25k?t=10

https://youtu.be/7iKaf1QUcoE?t=66

[Mike OReilly]

Originally Posted by GordMay

...It appears, to me, that we can be divided by almost anything, no matter how trivial (I see the issue)

This is true Gord, but that’s the point of trying to look beyond the specific issue. It’s not whether stricter ID requirements are “good” or “bad”. It’s how this issue, amongst others, have become attached to group identity. And also the opposite; how do some become unattached.

If we look at gay rights and the general acceptance of gayness in our societies, this issue has transitioned from one being completely verboten, and even illegal, to then becoming intertwined with various group identities as the battle raged, to now where most people accept the fact of it. Some battles still rage, but they are more fringe now, and less intertwined with mass group identities.

An even stronger and easier example is womens’ rights. They too followed pretty much the same trajectory as gay rights, but have progressed even further.

Cannabis legalization is earlier on this trajectory.

How and why do some of these subject become attached to group, or in this case, political identities? And how do they become unattached?

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

So, now you’re not only questioning the integrity of some elections, but also the judiciary as well? … See, this was the point I made some pages back; that one of the real danger facing our democracies is this kind of attack on its institutions. Without faith in the system, it all comes crumbling down.

Sure I question it. You could write volumes on the injustices. Remember OJ? All the racially motivated beatings by cops and their acquittal? The politically motivated incarcerations? Why do you think there are so many presidential pardons? The system is broken, don't try and hide the elephant in the room. Don't shoot the messenger and I didn't create the problem, I just recognize it for what it is.

[kmacdonald]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

How and why do some of these subject become attached to group, or in this case, political identities? And how do they become unattached?

The press likes to sensationalize everything. Good for ratings I guess.

[Exile]

Originally Posted by GordMay

Groups as diverse as The Cato Institute, ACLU, Libertarians, etc., have raised concerns about a national I.D. I’m merely pointing out that not everyone sees them as totally innocuous.

It appears, to me, that we can be divided by almost anything, no matter how trivial (I see the issue)

Especially if you try and analogize the voter ID issue to Nazi's persecuting innocents! I'm sure your intentions were & are honorable Gord, but anytime I see frequent comparisons to Nazi's, etc. to make various points -- whether in casual conversation, the "denier" label when discussing CC, or whatever -- I try and think of all the people still around who were directly or indirectly affected under Nazi rule. It really wasn't that long ago, and compared to all the "offense" people take to certain types of "speech" or presidential "tweets" these days, it's remarkable to me that otherwise cultured & learned people aren't a bit more aware. But more importantly than taking "offense," I'm sure you can see how it distracts, deters, and confuses people from engaging in what would otherwise be useful & healthy discourse. Of course, that's exactly what some of the more entrenched partisans want, but you never gave the impression you were one of them.

In short, who would want to advocate for voter ID laws if they were going to be likened to Nazi's? Maybe not as dramatically, but these are the types of "shaming" tactics that have been going on with a lot of politically charged issues these days, and is exactly why pollsters are having so much trouble predicting elections anymore. Brexit, Trump . . . there are many reasons people vote the way they do, and it rarely has much to do with what partisans on the other side try and ascribe to them. All it really does is stifle honest debate, pit people against each other, and exacerbate the problem of group think & tribal identity.

[Singularity]

Originally Posted by Mike OReilly

How and why do some of these subject become attached to group, or in this case, political identities? And how do they become unattached?

On attachment to a group:

The theory I buy into holds that the actions of the extremists who effectively act as the holders of virtue at the existential root of each "side's" position acts as the carnival barkers that keep each side in line. "You understand that women are subjugate and it's wrong....don't you? You know that xx is a sin and it's wrong...don't you?"
If you google classical cynics you'll find that they lived very virtuous lives, believing to be in touch with nature, etc. Plus some more colorful stuff, but ultimately virtuous nonetheless. Once (in the West) religion came about, there was a second arm of virtue that had a lot of strict rules that forbid the more colorful behaviors of the classical cynics. Fast forward 2000 years and we have secular virtue types and religion virtue types. Both still living closer to nature (or at least away from population centers)...one trying to protect the land (greenpeace and all the commune derivatives) the other sewing the land. Neither particularly liking cities Sodom/Gomorrah. Such biblical stories could/should be seen as sociologic history that, when viewed through the lens of history...can be seen to come/go cyclically.
But ultimately people are prone to align with sides. Don't people in Canada still wear hockey jerseys? Why? If you're 50, maybe to enable a discussion at a bar. If it's a football/soccer jersey in some countries and you're 20...maybe to start a fight.

How do issues separate from "sides?"
Success has many parents, failure is an orphan. Something like that.

If you go back 60 years in the US it's sort of ironic that Kennedy (leftist) was seen as stronger on defense...by lying about a missile gap. 20-30 years later...and ever since...a strong defense has been associated with the right. I'd relate McCarthyism and the Church Committee intelligence hearings to be related to both public sentimental shifts influencing the swing of the pendulum. This pendulum (notwistanding certain fervor in today's office) is swinging back to the left. To be seen if the pendulum gets all the way back to the left or if it is knocked off first...